Members JKane Posted September 12, 2012 Members Posted September 12, 2012 He hasn't said it explicitly, but allowing the Republicans to hoist themselves on their own budget/debt petard as a way to finally lower *vastly* overdone spending on our military-industrial complex is something I support President Obama at 100%! He just needs to stand up to them instead of backing down/cowering in the corner (the Democratic Party way!)... those budget provisions were Republicans own fucking idea and no, the ones affecting Republican fetishes/constituencies will not all be written off, no matter how dire the Republicans make *any* cut whatsoever to military spending WHICH OUTSTRIPS THE NEXT *14* COUNTRIES COMBINED sound! You know what, saying we don't need more than, what, 12 super-carriers--when none of our enemies operate ONE, or that we don't need hundreds to thousands of planes designed to fight WWIII against the Soviet Union is actually fucking reasonable but is somehow a 3rd rail in our politics. OF COURSE I'm not saying cut back on the troops, training, consumables, and most certainly not veteran care--especially for the injured. But every single one of those things should be a far higher priority than an entire new class of nuclear subs! lookin 1 Quote
Members lookin Posted September 12, 2012 Members Posted September 12, 2012 Agree with all you say, except for the part about Obama 'backing down/cowering in the corner'. While you may not see a lot of fist pounding and chest thumping from this President, I think you will see a backbone that's sturdy enough to keep us moving steadily in the direction of less conflict with other nations and, eventually, less conflict at home. In my opinion, the day he starts rattling sabres tit-for-tat with the Republicans is the day they will have won the battle. And all of us will have lost the war. JKane 1 Quote
AdamSmith Posted September 12, 2012 Posted September 12, 2012 Agree with lookin. Also, weapons spending containment begun by Gates continues under Panetta, nobody's fool. He, like Hillary (and like Obama come to think), does not make a lot of noise, just goes about the job. The defense contractors I follow in my consulting biz are tripling down on their lobbying, desperate to use their Congresspeople to thwart or at least blunt the cuts that the Administration is pushing. Time for yet one more prime-time re-airing of Ike's farewell speech? JKane 1 Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted September 13, 2012 Posted September 13, 2012 Well because of that spending we are sleeping comfortably in bed at nights and have jobs. It's the price someone has to pay... Quote
Members lookin Posted September 13, 2012 Members Posted September 13, 2012 Well because of that spending we are sleeping comfortably in bed at nights and have jobs. Not everyone. Much more than half of my voting decision is based on the compassion shown by the candidate. I find more on the Democratic side of the ticket, so that's where I tend to vote. For me, vague promises to create jobs have never yet trumped the commitment to care for those who, in fact, are not able to get one. JKane 1 Quote
AdamSmith Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Well because of that spending we are sleeping comfortably in bed at nights and have jobs. It's the price someone has to pay... Adding to what lookin said: What you say, hitoall, is not really accurate even in purely economic terms, let alone the human-cost factors. Unlike most manufacturing supply chains (automotive, commercial aircraft, agricultural and construction equipment, medical devices, general precision machinery, consumer and industrial electronics, etc.) that spread out quite quickly beyond the OEMs into multiple-industry-connected tier 1, 2 and 3 suppliers, the defense contractor industrial complex is quite narrowly contained. As for a number of evident reasons it has to be. So its spillover benefits to the general economy are rather small compared with other manufacturing industry sectors. Because of that, for instance, the government rescue of the auto industry also saved many suppliers whose collapse would have caused havoc in many other manufacturing industries than just the car business. Quote
Guest EXPAT Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 And now Romney wants to add $2 trillion to the defense budget. It's unbelievable to me that we think we can justify that kind of excessive expenditure. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted September 16, 2012 Posted September 16, 2012 Lookin and AS... Have you guys been having pillow talks??? lol What I meant was that because of the US military spending and it's strength, it contributed in stabilizing the global market and so people can invest without fear of losing their money... "stability" is a key factor in economic growth... Some people might disagree but that is how I see the role of US military strength. Its a significant force that drives the market at a time where so many global conflicts give rise to uncertainty. Quote
